Religious Affiliation Shrinking In the US 866
gollum123 notes new U.S. demographic data from the Pew Research Center which show that the percentage of Americans declaring affiliation with a particular religion has declined sharply since 2007. Americans identifying as Christian dropped from 78.4% in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Those describing themselves as atheist, agnostic, or simple having no affiliation took up most of the slack, rising from 16.1% to 22.8%. Members of non-Christian faiths collectively rose from 4.7% to 5.9%. Despite the overall decline, the demographics within the Christian group are getting much more racially and ethnically diverse. The willingness of respondents to marry outside their religious affiliation is also on the rise. The median age of unaffiliated adults is dropping, while the median ages of mainline Protestants and Catholics are rising. The study estimates that 85% of adults age 70 and over are Christian, while only 56% of adults ages 18-24 are Christian. They also say that each individual generation has shown a slight decrease in religious affiliation compared to their statistics in 2007.
23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Subject says it all.
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:3)
Re:23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Insightful)
What I think is really happening, is our culture is more accepting of people who are not religious. So the good portion of non-religious folks who have always been around, feel more open about it. Where before they would just label themselves the religion their parents said they were.
It is much like how there seems to be a surge in homosexulality, however it is more of a case it was always there it was just people never reported it.
Correct figures? (Score:3)
I wouldn't be sure that the numbers are correct.
Here in the UK 59% of the population claimed to be Christian in the 2011 census. However attendance at churches of all varieties runs to about 6% of the population. So what happened to the other 53%, are they really Christian or merely putting themselves down as Christian because it sounds better?
One thing that has been reported in the past is that while 40% of the population of the States reports that they attend services each week. However when actual counts
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me a "religiphobe" all you want. I have good reasons for it and in proud of it.
Religion is outdated nonsense that causes wars and suffering. It also leads to all sorts of bad laws and morals, like being abti-abortion or gay marriage.
There's no reason to be religious in this modern world. People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.
Religions were created as the first rudimentary forms of government or control over other people, and are still remarkably effective at that task. They only require an ongoing group of leaders to ensure obligations are continually felt by the members, as it's difficult to create a new religion quickly with a large enough number of committed adherents to wage an effective war.
The entire process is well understood and practiced worldwide.
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that. The first rudimentary forms of government involved big sweaty people threatening injury.
Religion's roots are more in the line of bribe God (Nature) to do what you want it to do. Such as end the multi-year drought in Texas.
Secular leaders, however, quickly learned that you can save a lot of money on big sweaty people if you just bribe the priests to say that God will stomp on you if you don't do what the leader wants.
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.
For sure, there's plenty examples of people of the same religion going to war over various reasons like land, resources, geopolitical reasons, wars of oppression, wars of liberation, power and control with wars of succession and so on. But for most of the genuine atrocities you need more, you need such a burning hate for the opposition that you're willing to slaughter down women and children and burn their cities to the ground. Where simply victory isn't enough, only total submission or even extermination. Religion is a very common fuel for such hate.
When fighting for resources you're also looking for a "return on investment", you have to gain enough to be worth going to war. That you can usually defend against by rational investments in defense, making it too costly to be worth it. Irrational wars fueled by hatred often don't care, a civil war might tear the whole country apart and leave it in ruins as long as the infidels die. The Germans fought the allies all the way back to Berlin, the Japanese until they were nuked. Twice. Neither made sense, it was death before surrender.
Of course you can say that was mostly racism, not religion though I'm pretty sure the Holocaust was a good dose of both though Nazi Germany certainly fought a lot of other nominally Christian nations. Religion is also a very lasting divide. Germany fought most of Europe, now they're a key member of the EU. The US was at war with Mexico, the North was at war with the South but the wounds mostly die with the generation that experienced it. In the middle east they've been fighting for 2000 years and every conflict reopens a wound that never heals.
Of course religion has its good sides, I think a lot of people behave better than they might have because they think God/Allah is watching or it affects their karma. So it's not just irrational evil, it's also irrational good. Mostly just irrational and mostly harmless, really I don't care if you want to bend knee and pray to the FSM or have your own diet because FSM said eating something is unclean or the FSM told you not to work on a Sunday or whatever. As long as you got it dialed down to mostly quaint and charming.
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course religion has its good sides, I think a lot of people behave better than they might have because they think God/Allah is watching or it affects their karm
I disagree. religion amongst murderers is higher than in the general population, suggesting religion has a negative effect on morality.
Re: (Score:3)
Next thing you'll tell me is that you'd wouldn't defend your children if they were accused of a crime that you knew they committed.
Assuming the punishment was just, HELL NO I wouldn't defend them. Children need to learn right from wrong and that bad decisions can have consequences. This is how they learn and grow into good people. Defending a child who did something wrong from the resultant penalties should get you a bad parent award of some sort.
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments would, of course, but it would be much more difficult for them to convince soldiers to actually go fighting.
Example 1, Operation Iraqi Liberty: US government wants to gain control of resources in Iraq, but they tell their people it is really for ideals of freedom and to do God's bidding [youtube.com]. Iraqi government wants to stay in power and keep oppressing their people, but tells their people they need to fight because God is the greatest [wikipedia.org].
Example 2, US Civil War. North wants to instate an economy of small farmers who can buy products of northern industry, but tells their people that it is because we're all brothers (which may very well be true, but I don't see the same people so eager to go to war when there is no money to be made); the South wanted to keep mooching off slave labor, but said that the Bible advocates slavery [wikipedia.org], so it's really a holy war.
In all cases, it is difficult to convince someone to risk taking a bullet if you cannot convince them that there is life after death, and that is eternal and so much better than this valley of tears. This creates a problem for the few countries that disavowed religion and were involved in wars, notably the Soviet Union, which had therefore to develop its own pseudo-religion of Rodina and, just to be on the safe side, extensive usage of barrier troops [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Governments would, of course, but it would be much more difficult for them to convince soldiers to actually go fighting.
I'm pretty sure that most of the USSR's history stands out ins stark contrast to that, if you were to replace "war" with "internal pogroms to root out counter-revolutionaries." Same with Maoist China, Pol Pot's brief regime, North Korea's ongoing regime, etc.
Consider that there are still fully operating concentration camps today in NoKo...
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's good to know that just because you're atheist you don't think any different than the religious folks you despise so much. Idiots with opinions like, "people who disagree with me should be treated like second class citizens," was the entire purpose behind the First Amendment. I'm reassured it won't stop being relevant as the current population ages.
Was the OP sarcastic ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The language of the GP was inflamatory.... But keep in mind we were deep throated during the last decades with scores of politician calling us second class citizen, or worst. See also scalia's 2014 speech in university of colorado's christian university.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
For a moment assuming that were true: "insanity is just another view of reality".
Who are you to claim your view of reality is any better than anyone else's? Because you have all the answers? Because I sure as hell don't. Even though I'm not religious, and a firm believer in the empirical / scientific method. There is still a lot about the universe we live in that we don't know. I'm just accepting that "as is" - there's gaping holes in our knowledge still, and that's okay. I don't need some divine being t
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:4, Insightful)
You are basing all religions based on a vocal subset.
So your stance against religion is based on your current political standpoint?
Those Soviets never got themselves in a war. WWI and WWII were all about religion.
Being Anti-Abortion a bad thing? So you are all for killing unborn children, on a whim? Where there is a complex societal issue, on when human life begins and needs social support, vs. the rights of the parent who's own needs needs to be considered as well. That is why they Call themselves Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. They are not Anti-Life and Anti-Choice. They feel the line where one precedes the other are in different spots.
Gay Marriage, Many religions do not have issues with this. Some do. Culturally this had became an issue with this generation, previously across multiple faiths and non-faiths it was considered deviant behavior. As we are now culturally being more accepting of such behaviors we need to consider how this applies to the traditional institutions that have existed.
Getting rid of religion, will not get rid of the Conservatives, who you seem to have more of an issue with. And for many people the fact that they are God fearing is the only thing that is holding them back from being really violent.
There are complex issues, where a particular religion may have a stance on, however you and what ever group you may belong to may have a stance on it too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:4, Informative)
So it seems that you don't have any problem with treating some groups of people as second class citizens, you just want to change which groups those are.
That was a quote from the poster before my poster. I'm disagreeing with his position.
Okay, that makes much more sense. Sorry for the mistake. You know they have quote tags you can use which really helps to clear these things up, especially if the post you are quoting is below a reader's score threshold. It's just <quote>.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:3)
Bobby: Do religions hate each other where you come from?
Noranti: Oh, good heavens no. Religions are grand lofty ideals. Religious followers, now that's another story.
(Farscape)
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:4, Insightful)
"We shall spread the word of our God by the Sword!" -- heard many times in history.
"We shall spread rational inquiry and the scientific method by the Sword!" -- never heard in history, to my knowledge.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is just one man; I think you'd do better to read the actual history of Russia. During the darkest times of their feudal totalitarian system [before the revolution] the Russians were extremely religious. And it was a hell-hole [Russia]. If you think that the communist totalitarian regime made them atheists you are wrong. At the moment Russia is as nuts as the US on religion. They are VERY religious. Now, how come that after 75 years of atheism you have such explosion of religion? Who t
Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score:4, Funny)
50 million? You are not even close! Billions of billions of babies die each year due to masturbation! Even more than the population of earth!
Seriously... read up on some biology, there is a big difference between the various stages of a fetus
Re: (Score:3)
Currently 50 million people do not exist in the US because of abortion. That's 16% of the population.
If they did they can all live at your house.
Being comfortable around crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
maybe the relig-a-phobes will calm down now.
Turn on the evening news tonight. Tell me how many stories you hear that at their core is some form of religious fighting or tribal bigotry. Israel/Palestine. Shiite/Sunni. Most acts of terrorism. Gay bashing. Anti-abortion protests. So called religious restoration acts (actually bigotry in disguise). Child abuse by priests. Oppression of women. It goes on and on. Tribal warfare, bigotry, hatred. While you don't need religion for these things, there can be no argument that religion frequently exaggerates these conflicts.
Would you be comfortable around a group of people who greatly outnumber you and who base a big part of their world view on something so fundamentally irrational and tribal and many of whom have a demonstrated propensity for violence?
Re:Being comfortable around crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that most religions are good and that very few of them condone these acts. It's just that you won't see it on the evening news. Because it's not exciting. I go to a baptist church, and I cringe that the Westboro Baptist Church uses the name "Baptist". It's basically the complete opposite of what they teach at my church. Everybody I have met there is very accepting of and they don't judge people. It's a nice change from the Catholic church I grew up in. They make a huge effort to apply the teachings in the bible to how to live your life as a better person. While I don't think that religion is required to be a good person, I think there are plenty of churches out there helping people to be better people in all aspects of life.
Re:Being comfortable around crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though I'm not religious, a surprising number of the religious people I've met are really first-rate human beings. But none of them are what you would call "zealots".
Maybe that's the problem: zealotry. Every one of us has to come to some accommodation with death, moral questions, and the randomness of the universe. If a myth helps you then I actually think that's kind of a beautiful way to go. If you believe that your myth now has to be reflected in society and the world around you, and you act on that belief in any other way than simply showing yourself as an example, then we have a problem.
I kind of like the fact that people react differently to the Big Questions.
Re:Being comfortable around crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Zealotry is probably the main issue. By and large, sports fans aren't that bad of people. But it doesn't take much searching to find evidence of riots and destruction from hard core sports fans, or people using sports as excuse to be terrible people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Being comfortable around crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
While you don't need religion for these things, there can be no argument that religion frequently exaggerates these conflicts.
But is it religion per se, or is it the "tribalism" in general (which you later reference). Religion is just one way of defining who's "in my group," and it's a very, very old and common one. But that doesn't mean by getting rid of religion, we'll get rid of tribalism.
Religion is just as often used as an excuse for warfare or conquest that people in power already want to do anyway. It's an ideological way of rallying the people at times, but there are plenty of other possible ideologies one could use for the same purpose.
Look at the biggest killers in the past century -- Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc. They didn't need religion to justify their atrocities, and in fact many such figures have eschewed traditional religion (probably because megalomaniacs want a "cult of themselves" rather than implicitly acknowledging a "higher power").
You're right to be afraid of people who are "so fundamentally irrational and tribal and many of whom have a demonstrated propensity for violence," but both religious nuts and atheist nuts can demonstrate those features. Significant numbers of religious people in the world have activity tried to stop wars, to seek peace, to end bigotry, and to seek justice. Many of the civil rights causes that fought against bigotry and led to modern rights were done partly in the name of religion, too. That doesn't mean religion is all good, either -- it just means that it's an ideology, and like all ideologies it can be used for good or for evil, for rational or irrational purposes.
I'm not at all trying to defend religious nuts. But the reality is that there are nuts everywhere. And you, like many people who have bought into their own ideologies and beliefs, have lumped all religious people into one category. Ironic, isn't it? You accuse people of bigotry and irrational tribalism, when your arguments do precisely the same thing.
Re:Being comfortable around crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Good works under false pretenses (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you claiming nothing bad has ever been done in the name of science?
I'm not aware of any wars or acts of genocide that have been conducted in the name of science. Of course I didn't bring science up at all so that's kind of irrelevant.
If you tried, could you find good things done in the name of religion?
Sure but almost always with disingenuous motivations usually related to marketing. Incredible amounts of charity work has been done by religious organizations. But this work is done at the end of the day as a marketing effort. Offering a hot meal to someone who is hungry is wonderful. Offering a hot meal and a bible is no longer charity - it is marketing. Doing a work of art celebrating something you personally believe in is fine. Putting it in a church to impress the public is marketing.
So yes I can find good works done in the name of religion but I have a much harder time finding good works done in the name of religion that lack ulterior motives. Good works done under false pretenses loses some of their luster.
A matter of trust (Score:3)
So, I see you carefully draw boundaries around the amount of good done to support your point.
Not drawing any boundaries around the amount of good. Their actions stand alone and speak for themselves. I'm merely pointing out that in many cases their charitable acts come with strings attached. Feeding the hungry is not the same act as feeding the hungry while proselytizing to them.
Take religion out of it altogether. Would you trust a for-profit company to be charitable without any ulterior motivations? I wouldn't. Nor would I trust a religious organization for the same reasons. Doesn't mean the
Re:Being comfortable around crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never heard of mass killing done in the name of science, no.
There's also the Belgium Free Congo State and the eugenics movement. And I think it's only a matter of time before some environmentalist themed group decides to try involuntary population reduction on people they don't like.
Re:23 down, 77 to go (Score:5, Interesting)
It is relatively trivial, if you have the resources, to wipe out a belief just by killing everyone who holds it. However, that's an atrocity and an atrocious 'argument', if it can even be called one. You prove nothing but power, and being an awful person, by doing it. It is only a victory of ideas if people voluntarily come to believe differently.
There's also the consideration that religions(in addition to their metaphysics and their moral prescriptions, which do tend to trouble atheists and non-aligned) tend to be a fairly large chunk of cultural practice(either because they developed it or because they co-opted and modified existing traditions. It is not at all uncommon for atheists to actively enjoy these aspects (the big, scary, Richard Dawkins himself is said to participate in christmas related ceremony with his family...), so long as they don't include religious leaders being granted state power and other unpleasant side effects.
Perhaps Rob Kaper is more ardent than usual, I don't speak for him; but my guess is that, while he'd be pleased to have you lose faith, you are in no danger whatsoever and may continue without incident.
The trouble with modern Christianity... (Score:3, Insightful)
For a mundane example:
There is a cat called Gerald, who has pink fur.
What colour is the fur of the cat?
The colour of the cat's fur is pink.
What is the name of the cat with pink fur?
The name of the cat with pink fur is Gerald.
Now look at some Biblish:
Sin is the result of our disobedience to God. We need Jesus because he died for our sins.
What did Jesus die for?
Jesus died for our sins.
What are our sins?
Our sins are the result of our disobedience to God.
Why are our sins a problem?
Because... because... erm... because they are the result of our disobedience to God, and that's clearly a bad thing.
And that's kind of where such discussions go downhill. The above discussion is an illustration of what happens when genuine understanding is absent, and this is all too often the case, especially amongst members of the religious establishments we have today. On the other hand, just doing the atheist thing often falls into the same traps, but beginning from a different set of basic sentences (there is probably no God; science can explain everything; what is the scientific evidence for the efficacy of prayer). Without fully exploring what meaning can be recovered from ancient teachings given suitable interpretation (and this ultimately must be done by first exhibiting real world practical scenarios where the meaning can be seen at work) we can neither hold them up as truth, nor dismiss them as backward fairytales. Unfortunately the masses are generally doing one or the other.
Re:The trouble with modern Christianity... (Score:5, Interesting)
Gerald the pink-furred cat only exists in your imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought Religious affiliation was rising in USA (Score:3)
I'm not sure how many years ago it was, but I thought Christianity was rising in the USA (I even think it was a news in /.).
Either way it's good news. I prefer my superpowers secular.
We need a republican president ASAP! (Score:5, Funny)
These scary views of global warming and evolution are causing people to burn for eternity in hell for not believing in GOD!!
We need a pro God president to change the culture of this country so people stop thinking for themselves! It is only a matter of time before we anger him by voting for things Jesus did like providing healthcare and support for the poor and sick and our nation will fear his wrath.
Speak for yourself. (Score:4, Insightful)
These scary views of global warming and evolution are causing people to burn for eternity in hell for not believing in GOD!!
We need a pro God president to change the culture of this country so people stop thinking for themselves! It is only a matter of time before we anger him by voting for things Jesus did like providing healthcare and support for the poor and sick and our nation will fear his wrath.
Not sure if serious or just bad troll...
I find the GP's post to be a wonderful sarcastic post that encapsulates the ignorance and hypocrisy of the Evangelical Christians in the US - and the Republican base.
It's only a "Troll" to you because you don't like what is being said. But that's usually the case on the Net these days. If one doesn't like what's being said, just call them a "Troll" and be done with it. It's just as bad as exclaiming, "I'm offended!" It's just a cheap way to shut people up that you disagree with.
Inconsistent (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say it is because of Christian inconsistencies. On the one hand they state that God's love is unconditional, on the other they say if you don't love God and follow His laws you will go to hell. There is no logic to religion.
Re:Inconsistent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inconsistent (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say it is because of Christian inconsistencies. On the one hand they state that God's love is unconditional
No. Christians claim that there's a very specific condition. John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
There may be some debate around what what it means to believe in Jesus, but if someone claims to be a Christian but doesn't believe that, they're not really a Christian.
on the other they say if you don't love God and follow His laws you will go to hell. There is no logic to religion.
Again, no. It is not possible for a person to fully love God and follow his laws perfectly, which is what made atonement through Christ's death necessary. Hell is separation from God. As noted above, God gave a very specific way for people to spend eternity with him. If you don't want to believe in Jesus Christ, then you spend eternity separated from him. That seems perfectly logical to me.
What you seem to be espousing is the secular Hollywood/pop-culture view of Christianity, which is almost always an inaccurate portrayal of it.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
US is the only developed (or "more or less developed") country where religious nuts are still a majority.
Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
"Hi, I'm Muhammad, I can't write, read or preform simple math. I'm totally illiterate, have epilepsy, like to wear diapers on my head and ride unicorns. Let me tell you about Islam where women are objects, female children, much like Christianity, are rape objects and science must be outlawed at all costs, oh and don't think about drawing a picture of me, or someone could kill you"
Christianity:
"Hi, I'm God, I'm a piss poor engineer who has anger issue and love S&M. I put two or one person in a garden, they had children who killed each other, I allowed incest, rape, murder and slavery. I got really pissed off twice, once I wiped out humanity using a fable which no ration human could believe. I then sent my son to die in the greatest sadomasochist grandstanding in history for being mad at my self, oh and remember to give all your money to the church, because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles."
Mormonism is to stupid to even comment on and the same can be done for ALL religions.
So it's a good thing religious belief is falling, it made no sense back in the day and less sense now. You can't call yourself a logical adult human and believe that your sky daddy created the universe and left no evidence, that isn't rational.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
That's completely delusional. [rice.edu]
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
Theology is the study of religious beliefs and practices. You'll find no shortage of atheist theologians. Or do you mean theology in the sense of a system of beliefs? In that case, you'll find that Islam is not monolithic, but divided along theological lines. Either way, your statement is incoherent.
science must be outlawed at all costs
I can find no branch of Islam that "outlaws" or otherwise forbids science. On the contrary, there are many Muslim scientists practicing today, as well as many historically significant Muslim scientists.
because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles
Many Christians would disagree. I can't find a Christian sect that would affirm that. It's possible one exists, but it would be exceptional, not representative.
it made no sense back in the day and less sense now.
What makes "no sense" is your post. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you're going to have to offer more than nonsense like this to support your position.
I Moderate this Article Submission (Score:4, Funny)
-1 Troll
from gallup (Score:5, Informative)
1. The % of those who say religion is a "very important" part of their life has remained roughly constant.
2. The % of those who says religion is only a "fairly important" part of their life has showed more consistent decline.
3. The % of "nones" seems to be mostly cannibalizing from the "fairly important" group, who are essentially nominal believers. The % of people who are "devout" seems to be more-or-less holding its own.
4. The % of people who claim to have attended church or synagogue in the last 7 days has remained roughly constant.
5. The % of people who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again Christians" has remained roughly constant (except for an elevated plateau from 1998 to 2002).
6. The % who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again" is actually higher (40%) in 2013 than it was in 1992 (36%).
Re:from gallup (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are Gallup's historical trends up to 2013.
This is the most insightful post here so far.
The real trend seems to be away from a "default" position of "Yeah, I guess I believe in God, and maybe I'm a Christian" to "Yeah, I don't really care that much."
Is that an actual shift in values, or is it just that it's more socially acceptable now to acknowledge that you don't care about religion that much? A few decades ago, these people may have just gone to church on Christmas and Easter, but otherwise showed no daily signs of being "religious," but it was just the default way of things.
Nowadays, these people may still go to church on Christmas and Easter or whatever because it's family tradition, but they behave precisely the same way as they did decades ago... it's just now they feel more free to admit that there are other things they do. (It's worthwhile to remember that socialization was very different a few decades ago; churches were an important hub for communities and still are, but now we have a lot more possible ways to participate in both real-world and virtual communities.)
Basically, the percentage of people who are "devout" and attend church regularly has remained roughly the same. The people who were essentially "meh" before probably still are, but they've found other ways of filling their time and social calendar than attending an occasional church BBQ.
That isn't to say there aren't significant shifts, but I'd be more likely to interpret this as a social shift rather than one in the number of "believers." After all, we seem to still have record numbers of nonsense shows on TV concerning ghosts, aliens, and whatever other crap. People are still willing to believe in all sorts of mystical weirdness [wikipedia.org] (though I'd be interested in seeing some more recent polls than in that link) -- it's just becoming less institutionalized.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth noting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Religious affiliation is quite significant, of course, it's obviously notable that substantially more people both can't be bothered to get their ass out of bed on Sunday morning and are willing to admit that they have no formal affiliation(historically, at least in the US, you might not actually attend all that often, or pay that much attention; but denying association was somewhat transgressive). It's also significant for the hopes of various religious groups to exercise political power through organized bloc voting (the 'moral majority', not that it was ever either, sure isn't going to be done any good by the evangelical protestant numbers, nor is the ability of bishops to bluster during election season going to improve with those catholic numbers.
However, it's by no means the case that religious non-affiliation is necessarily anything other than pure disinterest, or vague belief in supernatural entities(probably shaped by a layman-level understanding of whatever your parents nominally believed, with any overtly objectionable parts left on the cutting room floor). There may also be a story about atheism here; but that isn't really the poll result.
In that sense, the results aren't really too surprising: the liberal protestant and 'cafeteria catholic' congregations have been working their way toward being increasingly irrelevant social activities for years to decades now; some nice people and all that; but pretty light on religion, which meant that they drifted into direct competition with any and all other activities you do with other people, without being obviously more entertaining, conveniently scheduled, or otherwise competitive.
The more conservative groups tended to retain the religiosity a bit more intensely; but they really got burned by their flirtation with state power(let's say roughly Reagan through Bush II in round numbers). They did get some of what they wanted, though not enough to prevent disappointment; but they burned a lot of religious legitimacy in the process. Remember that jewish radical who said that his kingdom was not of this world? Well, it'd be hard to argue that the evangelical power-brokers hanging out at the 'National Prayer Breakfast' and trying to get Washington to do something about homos and abortionists do. Even if your beliefs are fairly strong, and largely 'Christian' in outline, it's hard to avoid seeing the liberal wing of Christianity as increasingly wishy-washy and irrelevant, certainly not worth going to church with; and the conservative wing as dangerously unfocused on the kingdom of god in favor of trying to achieve local political gains.
Phoney Beatlemania has bitten the dust (Score:4, Funny)
finally we will be left with only true Beatlemania!
The Fabulous Four be praised.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very important, because religious wackos tend to be the ones against modern science and technology.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as I can tell technophobia is on the rise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how far can you "tell", exactly? If you care about technology and science and rationalism so much maybe you should learn the difference between evidence and anecdotes.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
Evidence, anecdotes and Congressional appointments.
"Lies from the Pit of Hell", you know.
Re: (Score:3)
In the longer term, they largely face two choices - adapt, or withdraw from society. I think you'll see a lot of g
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
I have seen bad and anti-science dribble spread across equally from Religious and Atheist alike. If the science is against their worldview or political viewpoint then they will choose to disagree with it. You don't see too many Evangelical Religious folks touting the dangers of GMO food, or stating the dangers of vaccines (The religious folks may refuse to take vaccines, but not because of the risks or rewards, but due to other reasons).
Also jumping onto the latest diet trend, (Remember the low fat, high carbs movement back in the 1990's)
Religion and Science are not in conflict nor are they one in the same. The "Proofs" against the existence of God, are just as faulty as the "Proofs" for God.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a lot of different beliefs requiring magical thinking. You can believe in any of them, even many of them, without believing in the others. Some of them are even self-contradictory. There are some atheists that believe in ghosts; but oddly, many Christians and Muslims also believe in ghosts, though they already have a whole theology about what happens after death that does not include hanging around on the Earth, causing mischief and pestering Hamlet.
I don't have polling data, but it does pass
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have polling data, but it does pass the sniff test to assume that one form of magical thinking, inculcated from birth, would tend to make the personality more at-risk of accepting other magical-thinking proposals.
Well, there are some studies [bbc.com] which suggest what you say is true, but there are other scientists [telegraph.co.uk] and psychologists [americanscientist.org] who have claimed that supernatural beliefs and superstitions are "hard-wired" into humanity. Many anthropologists have argued [nature.com] that some sort of supernatural beliefs were necessary for the foundation of complex societies, but there's disagreement about the exact role or types of beliefs and their effects.
On the other hand, regardless of upbringing, there seem to be specific psychological trait
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Proofs" against the existence of God, are just as faulty as the "Proofs" for God.
That's an important point, wrt not making claims about what we don't know. I realise Richard Dawkins is critical of people who say, "science doesn't understand x therefore I believe in dragons etc." BUT/AND there is the other side where, scientism claims that life after death is impossible, and that's a step too far because, going back to the "we don't understand x", we don't have the faintest idea what sentience is, and nobody has come up with a good answer for how to even define it, or for how sentience arises out of matter, so Occam's razor doesn't help, because we don't know what the simplest answer would even be.
Why if you are a biological machine, are you also sentient? What's the point of sentience? It is irrelevant to life. Ants and birds might not be sentient, they are just machines running, like plants or trees, so why is there also this odd and unnecessary and frankly, annoying sentience? Yet if your body was here, living, yet without you being sentient, it would seem like... being dead? Why are we so identified with sentience, and why have we no idea how sentience works?
Not that I'm saying people should believe in sentience continuing after bodily death, I'm saying people overstep the mark when they claim that it must end and that's that and anyone who wonders otherwise is a religious nut. That's just where a scientific view becomes a scientism view, a belief in itself. So, remain open minded.
I'm not saying there is a god, and frankly my best speculative guess is that there is a cosmos of many kinds of beings, humans, ants, why not other stuff we don't know about, but there is NO evidence for ANY of the Abrahamic Gods, none of the Pagan Gods, whatever, these are all just old stories, and have no evidence at all for any of it. Those guys were not the first to have hallucinations nor the first to start a social movement.
And most of the main religions REQUIRE you to believe in a God, there is no way round that, and that belief or story is a sort of metaphor of then what you believe yourself to be, that comes to define what you believe you are, a sinner; in submission; etc., and all of those stories are simply bad psychology.
So yes, people should quite rightly be becoming atheist as they catch up with the modern world, like, if you are not atheist, then you haven't actually really quite noticed modernity. But that also means dropping the idea that we are "human animals" because, that's actually just another myth. We don't know what we are because we don't know what the real nature of sentience is. And as we discover more actual knowledge, maybe we'll start to discover something about that.
The hardest thing isn't just to drop the religious beliefs, the hard thing is to not go replacing them with pseudo-modern versions, like "we are a clever ape".
Modernity can retain the mystery because like all things we know we don't know, we simply leave it as an open question. And if atheists start getting too dogmatic then maybe we start a new thing called, "remaining being open minded".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? There is no reason to believe in the existence of any god, so until there is proof otherwise, forget it. That's not being close-minded, it's being rational. Also, we ARE human animals. Sentience isn't limited to just humans, either. First definition of sentience when I googled for it:
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience).
Animals are capable of both reasoning (solving puzzles, etc) and feelings. Not only that, they are also capable of picking up on the feelings of other species - ask any dog owner if their dog knows when they're depressed or frightened, or if they can tell when their dog is happy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm saying people should believe in sentience continuing after bodily death, I'm saying people overstep the mark when they claim that it must end and that's that and anyone who wonders otherwise is a religious nut. That's just where a scientific view becomes a scientism view, a belief in itself. So, remain open minded.
I wish I had mod points, because this is an insightful post. There is a line of thought that says that if something can't be observed, measured or defined scientifically then it doesn't exist. I think that way of thinking closes the mind. There is a lot we don't know or understand, so foreclosing the possibility of other states of being or consciousness is a mistake. We simply don't know, as you say.
Science and the scientific method have enabled us to understand a lot of the world around us. Its value
Re: News for nerds (Score:4, Informative)
But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that it is the only tool we have for gathering knowledge. It can't answer every question, and that's okay.
Yes, it is the only tool. Other tools can provide answers, but not knowledge. Knowledge can be used to make predictions, and predictions are testable, and therefore fall in the realm of science. If your answers can't be used to make predictions, they are not useful, and they might as well not exist.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Informative)
But:
"scientism claims that life after death is impossible"
Science makes no such claims. "Science" would say that there's no credible evidence of life after death therefore it probably doesn't exist. Should credible evidence arise, "science" will re-evaluate.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the point of sentience? It is irrelevant to life
Sentience is what you get if you make a realistic model of the world around you, and yourself in it, with the capability to run complicated what-if scenarios on it, like "if I throw a rock at that bear, it'll probably charge me, but I will be able to escape through that narrow cave entrance if I run fast enough". It helps survival, so it is crucial to life.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
I am atheist and while I am pro-nuclear power, pro-vaccine,and believe in global warming I am very much against GMO foods. I against them though because if the transfer of power they represent, not about the food itself. No study has ever shown GMO corn is any less or more healthy than natural corn. GMO foods shift power from the people and the farmer to the chemical company. GMO crops encourage the indiscriminate use of herbicides that put other crops and the soil itself at risk. If you don't believe this, try to grow a non-"Roundup Ready" (TM) crop in a field that has been sprayed with massive quantities of glyphosate for years.
This is a classic power play.
1. Sell seed that make it easier to grow a crop
2. Sell a chemical that removes the competition in turn raising yields
3. Said chemical poisons the soil making it impossible to grow anything but said seed
4. Profit...lots of it, for now and the future
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I am atheist and while I am pro-nuclear power, pro-vaccine,and believe in global warming I am very much against GMO foods. I against them though because if the transfer of power they represent, not about the food itself. No study has ever shown GMO corn is any less or more healthy than natural corn. GMO foods shift power from the people and the farmer to the chemical company.
Unfortunately, you're conflating a few things that don't necessarily belong together.
Genetic modification to make plants herbicide resistant is only one form of genetic modification. And I can't disagree -- the way that Monsanto has gone after farmers, and pretty much "owns" agriculture is disgusting.
At the same time, there are a lot of other genetic modifications in food that have nothing to do with selling chemicals. You can't tell me that you're also against Golden Rice [goldenrice.org]? They have a whole lot of studi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem I have with GMO is that its safety is based on the assumption that ecosystems are built according to the taxonomy of biology: species, genus, family, and so on. We now know that this is a very simplistic way of looking at the dynamic system of relationships that is an ecosystem. A forest ecosystem is defined more by the interrelationships between the great trees, the soil microbes, the fish in its rivers, and the fisher birds that deliver nutrients to the hillsides than by which particular spec
Re: News for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: News for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: News for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Belief systems and the practice of science are as unrelated as music and athletics. There are plenty of excellent scientists that are devout believers in various religions. There are more who follow personal spiritual paths that are separate from any organized religion.
There is the unfortunate phenomenon of belief in Science, but that is not science. That is just another belief system, where pseudo-scientists believe that things science once discovered are somehow imbued with an eternal truth. The true practitioner of science knows that: firstly, every single scientific "law" might be overturned at any time by some new discovery that displays reality from a new and different point of view; and secondly, that Science as Religion is totally useless when it comes to guidance with any of the important decisions every one of us must make.
That second part is of direct concern to me, and to many other people. These decisions include whether to tell the truth or lie, whether to work for the common good or grab whatever you can get, whether honor and honesty are more important to the person than status and finding an easy way toward personal goals. Persons who believe in science have substituted Newton's laws and the periodic table for religious/spiritual principles, which just doesn't work. It seemingly gives them a framework that allows them freedom from the encumbrances of morals or ethics. But those encumbrances are part of being human, and without them these persons are just shits.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
That second part is of direct concern to me, and to many other people. These decisions include whether to tell the truth or lie, whether to work for the common good or grab whatever you can get, whether honor and honesty are more important to the person than status and finding an easy way toward personal goals. Persons who believe in science have substituted Newton's laws and the periodic table for religious/spiritual principles, which just doesn't work. It seemingly gives them a framework that allows them freedom from the encumbrances of morals or ethics. But those encumbrances are part of being human, and without them these persons are just shits.
What's most interesting is that it's usually the most religious people who buy into the Republican Party's ideology, which includes "grabbing whatever you can get" and espousing Ayn Rand-style objectivist philosophy.
By contrast, the irreligious people are much more liable to vote for politicians who push social welfare programs ("working for the common good").
So the idea of religion giving people any kind of decent morals or ethics is blatantly false.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
This agrees with military research that shows religious believers tend to make better officers. Atheists and humanists have a more difficult time ordering others to their deaths, or directing the killing of other humans. Religious believers handle these tasks better because they have coping mechanisms they can use to justify these actions in the name of a higher power. 'Communist' societies (they were all usually dictatorships and not communist) substituted a belief in the party or the state instead of appealing to 'olde tyme' religion, but the result was the same: You are carrying out [God|The State|The Party]'s will, and so your actions are morally justified.
When this life is all you have and all you believe in, it becomes very precious and harder to justify destroying life. If, on the other hand, you are convinced that there is paradise waiting for you beyond this life there are all sorts of nasty actions you can justify.
I really suggest reading Victor Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning [wikipedia.org]'. I don't agree with Frankl's later philosophies, but this is a meaningful look into the depths of atrocities that humans can inflict on other humans. Frankl's work helped explain how attitude and belief helped him and others survive Auschwitz. It doesn't directly deal in this subject, but is an amazing account that highlights both the good and the bad outcome of strong beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
You raise some valid points, but they have more to do with the shortcomings of organized religion than the differences between religious beliefs, the practice of science, and the shortcomings of persons who get it all mixed up, and believe in Science as if it were a Religion.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
What's most interesting is that it's usually the most religious people who buy into the Republican Party's ideology, which includes "grabbing whatever you can get" and espousing Ayn Rand-style objectivist philosophy.
Check out this story on npr: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/... [npr.org]
Basically it would appear religion is in politics for the same reason anything else is, fat cats want more money. Whoda thought?
Taxation is not charity (Score:3, Insightful)
People voting to rob other people at gun-point (which is how taxes are collected) to pay for something, they themselves consider worthwhile are not "charitable" and driven not by ethics, but by simple greed: "I want a better road, I can not pay for it — ergo, I'll vote for forcing others to pay it for instead." It is so blatant, whenever a poor person speaks out against s
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Belief systems and the practice of science are as unrelated as music and athletics. There are plenty of excellent scientists that are devout believers in various religions.
While your second statement is obviously true, that does not help validate your first statement. Every limitation can be overcome, even being a religious scientist. I equate it as being similar to a professional basketball player who is under 6' tall. It is absolutely possible but it does impact your play.
Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great lecture [youtube.com] which goes over how religious thought has impacted some of the greatest minds in history. He also writes about the concept in an article [haydenplanetarium.org] titled "The Perimeter Of Ignorance." As I understood his point, there have been times when great scientific scholars have stopped their pursuit of knowledge because they were content with the "God did it" explanation.
Newton stopped investigating the movement of planets once his current mathematical knowledge was put to the task of understanding how planets affect each others' orbits. This was the man who invented Calculus and wrote the Principia, but even he was guilty of not pushing forward the boundaries of science because he was content with the "God did it" answer. If not for his religious beliefs, perhaps he would have added inventing perturbation theory to his list of accolades and could have introduced it a century before Laplace did.
I am not arrogant enough to think I could keep religious beliefs from impacting my ability to investigate the world rationally if even geniuses like Newton couldn't.
The most troubling causational link he highlights is how the Islamic world lost its place as a center of scientific progress when a radical version of Islam took hold in the 12th century. Over the centuries that followed, the Islamic world went from being the place Algebra was invented to having 0.6% of Nobel laureates in Physics/Chemistry/Medicine with 23% of the world's population.
My favorite concept from his lecture is the danger of Revelation Replacing Investigation. It is at the core of why scientific thought and religious thought are at opposing sides, even though they can both exist within the same human being.
Re: News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful? It's completely incoherent!
Belief in religion is belief in magic
I'll accept this premise just for fun. There's far too much ambiguity to consider it further.
hence anti-science
Science has nothing to say on the subject of magic. It is simply not within the scope of scientific inquiry. You'll also find that many practicing scientists are also religious. A recent survey found more than a third claim to "have no doubt about God’s existence", a surprisingly extreme position. Another found that, among AAAS members, more than half believe in "God or a higher power".
All the same, let's pretend we accept this as well and lament that our scientific institutions have not only been infiltrated, but completely overwhelmed by anti-science agents.
That's causation right there.
How on earth do you get "causation" out of the preceding? I can't even begin to guess what you conclude causes ... some other unknown! Even if we accept the previous absurdities, without reservation, this bizarre conclusion simply does not follow.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll also find that many practicing scientists are also religious
That doesn't mean anything. You can be a practicing scientist and still be unable to think critically in certain aspects of your life because of your upbringing (like being brain washed by your religious parents).
Re: (Score:3)
"But seriously? Trying to equate especially nuc power with religion is pretty silly."
No I am equating the anti-technology views of those that are not atheists with those that are.
"Don't like seeing anything you don't like, eh? Life can be tough."
I don't like the direction that Slashdot has taken. It is like NPR has been taken over by FOX News or MSNBC.
" Chernobyl and Fukushima and come up with a rational reason to be wary of nuclear power."
Actually being worried about Nuclear energy because of Chernobyl is
Re: News for nerds (Score:4, Informative)
Religious wackos delegate their ethical decision making to some scripture that cannot be questioned or examined critically.
Re: (Score:3)
Or its possible that some people can't recognize personal ethics if they don't contain a book:chapter:verse reference.
Pressuring the majority? (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in a world of empiricism, where the concepts of faith and religion are - if not outright mocked and denigrated - are under constant pressure.
Not in the USA we don't. Go to certain parts of this country and openly mock religion and let me know how that works out for you. There are several states where it is technically illegal for me to hold public office if I am an atheist. There mere fact that close to 3/4 of people openly are affiliated (at least loosely) with some form of organized religion proves that your thesis is nonsense.
The benefits that faith brings to individuals and societies are trivialized.
Because in most cases they are trivial in comparison to the problems organized religion brings. There is no benefit that religion brings that necessitates belonging to an organized religion. We're supposed to forgive and forget all the misery, bigotry, tribalism and wars caused by religion just because they open some hospitals and food banks which are really just thinly disguised efforts to convert others to their tribe? I'm supposed to ignore the idiots trying to push their prayers in public schools or theology in the science classroom? I'm supposed to be ok with priests fondling children and never going to jail for it? I'm supposed to overlook the continual and ongoing wars between various religious groups across the world?
I believe people need faith in proportion to their misery.
And I disagree with you on this. People do not have a biological need to believe in fancy mythologies even in times of stress. It demonstrably is not required. Some find comfort in doing so (which is fine) but then some inevitably feel the compulsion to try to force their bizarre ideas on the rest of the world. If believing in something irrational helps you get through the day I have no problem with that as long as you keep it to yourself.
Re:Pressuring the majority? (Score:5, Informative)
Holy Heck, as a Non-American I thought your claim that there are states that ban atheists from being elected was probably an exaggeration or simply an interpretation of how it is hard in many places to be elected if one is a self-declared atheist. Hit a google search and figured i'd put this in there in case others were thinking like I was but don't bother to follow up.
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
from here [americanhumanist.org] and the wiki page they probably got it from [wikipedia.org].
If i had more time i'd look to see if there are cases of anyone actually being denied in the recent past or unseated after the fact but the fact that these provisions even exist to begin with is pretty awful.
Plenty of dumb unenforced laws. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Right. And even where it's not enshrined in law, you'd never get elected if you admitted to atheism. This is why Obama was advised to begin to attend church when he got into politics.
Re:Pressuring the majority? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately, these restrictions are all unenforcible. They're overruled by Article 6 of the US Constitution which states, "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." But the fact that so many states tried, and that they've continued to leave these restrictions in their constitutions despite being completely unenforcible, is pretty shocking and disgusting.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actual scientific studies seem to indicate that poorer people are much more likely to be religious than well-off people. For examples, look at this Gallup page that says Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations [gallup.com]. Or check out the Wikipedia page on Wealth and Religion [wikipedia.org] which says "The GDP of countries generally correlates negatively with their religiosity, i.e. the wealthier a population is the less religious it is". There are several studies cited on that page that seem to support that conclusion. Y
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would be far more likely to be swayed by your argument if you were to show / link / discuss any actual "double-blind tests now showing liberals as more racist than conservatives", Please show me how average liberals are racist against white people, especially 'over and over'. There are kooks everywhere, I know, but claiming massive one-sidedness doesn't work with some sort of evidence by a researcher.
Re: (Score:3)
Note: I'm intentionally not making a "religious" argument for the persistence of religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I am waiting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a start for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
http://old.richarddawkins.net/... [richarddawkins.net]
You might also be interested to know that atheists commit LESS crime than their religious counterparts
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/1... [salon.com]
And their divorce rate is lower
http://www.alternet.org/belief... [alternet.org]
Meanwhile shall we look at all the wars, murder and mayhem conducted in the name of religion/god? Not sure what the character limit is on /. posts, might exceed it...